Rowland Showed His Smarts In Patriots' Deal

November 22, 1998|By MICHELE JACKLIN

Asked about the prospects for Adriaen's Landing at a meeting with The Courant's editorial board last month, Gov. John G. Rowland didn't hesitate. The project will get done, the governor said. ``You can go to the bank on it.''

It was clear Rowland had something up his sleeve. After the dual debacles of the Bridgeport casino and University of Connecticut football stadium, Rowland wouldn't be promising something he couldn't deliver. No governor wants to suffer a third stinging defeat, especially when he's made revitalization of the cities the centerpiece of his second term.

We now know that, as he spoke, Rowland was close to reeling in a National Football League franchise to install as the cornerstone of the Hartford riverfront project. On-again, off-again negotiations had been going on for years with Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, and had quietly escalated over the last several months.

Actually, the joke's on us. We all thought Rowland was out raising money and campaigning for governor. In fact, he was laying the groundwork for the Patriots' move to Hartford and construction of a $350 million stadium. It was very shrewd of the governor not to go public until the election was over. No sense entangling the Patriots and UConn's upgrade to Division I-A football in the thicket of a campaign.

To do so would have galvanized football haters, forced Democrat Barbara B. Kennelly to stake out a position and put other Democrats especially those in outlying areas of the state on the hot seat. For some Connecticut voters, the gubernatorial election would have turned into a referendum on pro football.

But with the election safely behind them, the governor and a lame-duck legislature have a free pass they can approve $350 million in borrowing for a 68,000-seat stadium without fear of reprisal.

Now, I know what you're thinking: There she goes complaining again, always the curmudgeon. What's $350 million? And besides, what do women know about football?

Well, I'm as rabid a football fan as anybody, having come of age with the New York Jets. Twenty-two years ago I wrote a master's thesis entitled ``A Dialectic Process of Hero-Making: A Content Analysis of The New York Times' and Dallas Morning News' Coverage of Joe Namath and Roger Staubach.'' It was great fun. And as a bonus, the university I attended awarded me a master's degree in communication.

Nope, I'm not going to don my usual naysayer mantle. I'm just as thrilled as the next person to have the Patriots riding into town.

But, in our breathless anticipation, I do think Connecticut residents (e.g., taxpayers) have a right to know all the facts, chief among them how this $350 million stadium is to be financed. It's also important to understand that a stadium is no substitute for honest-to-goodness economic development.

The governor and legislative leaders say the bonds will be paid off primarily through a 10 percent surcharge on stadium tickets. Sounds good, too good. If state-of-the-art stadiums can be built with the proceeds from ticket surcharges, why hasn't that financing mechanism been used in every major league city in America? Why did citizens in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Denver and Arlington, Texas, (just to name a few) have to vote on new taxes and sports lotteries to build stadiums?

Why did economists for the New York City Independent Budget Office, in analyzing the viability of building new ballparks for the Yankees and Mets, write, ``Most of the professional sports stadiums in use today reflect substantial government subsidies?''

Why doesn't every city just jack up the price of tickets to repay bonds to build sports palaces? There's probably a simple answer to that question, though no one in the last few days has been able to provide one.

As for economic development, the governor is correct when he says the Patriots are just one piece of a larger, complex puzzle.

Urban experts love to talk about the multiplier effect, that is, the economic spillover created in terms of jobs, restaurant use, parking activity, tourism, etc. The multiplier effect is a myth. Most people who go to sporting events drive their cars directly to the stadium, park on site, chow down on nachos, jump in their cars and drive home.

Look at the Meadows Music Theatre, which the Weicker administration boasted would be an economic boost for Hartford. Try canvassing city restaurants on evenings when concerts are held. Most tables are empty. In terms of parking, the fees go into the pockets of monopoly owners who are favored by city officials.

``Research consistently finds that new stadiums do not produce economic growth in metropolitan areas,'' the New York City economists wrote. ``These results imply that stadiums do not lead to increases in tourism, nor do they serve as a significant attraction to non-retail establishments.''

Jobs, you say. Sure, hundreds of low-paying, no-benefits seasonal jobs will be created. Compare that to a new mall planned in New Haven that is expected to generate 2,800 permanent, full-time jobs.

Enough negative stuff. Bring on the Patriots. Most of us can't wait for that Goodyear blimp to soar above the skyline, beaming its cameras on Hartford. When that day arrives, however, let's hope that viewers see more than rubble-strewn lots, burned out buildings and empty streets.